Re: [coreboot] [commit] r5286 - ...

[Stefan Reinauer]

On 3/25/10 11:07 PM, Myles Watson wrote:
> > I changed one as an example now...
> > I guess we could optimize to not copy the header twice, but the header
> > is really small, so i didn't care to make the code uglier.
>
> I agree.
> > @@ -273,8 +273,10 @@
> >      acpi_create_facs(facs);
> >  dsdt = (acpi_header_t *) current;
> > current += AmlCode.length;
> > memcpy((void *) dsdt, &AmlCode, AmlCode.length);
> > memcpy((void *) dsdt, AmlCode, sizeof(acpi_header_t));
> > int len = dsdt->length;
> > current += len;
> > memcpy((void *) dsdt, AmlCode, len);
>
> Why not:
> > current += dstd->length;
> > memcpy((void *) dsdt, AmlCode, dsdt->length);
>
> I don't think the extra variable adds anything.

Ah, I thought in terms of "it's overwriting memory while it's using it".
Was I too careful? I think so.